final content Flashcards
define social media
- internet platforms/sites that allow users to create/share/exchange content
- trends for which platforms are most popular have changed over the years (increase in youtube, tiktok, instagram but decrease in facebook, twitter)
describe affordances of SM
affordances = what does something allow you to do
- identifiability = have a choice to decide how anonymous you are
- cues management = can control how you present yourself
- permanence = information can be stored and found later
- publicness information can be shared easily with larger groups
- availability = easy to locate information and people
- asynchronicity = engage when it suits you
- quantifiability = numerical social metrics
- interactivity = exchange messages with others
[Ariya Can Post Instagram Pictures And Interact Quickly]
define identity
a sense of who you are, what you will become, and how you fit into the world (unifying sense of who you are across contexts)
- main challenge of adolescent years
explain common theories on identity development in adolescents
- identity stability vs confusion
- identity stability/cohesion = stable sense of who you are
- confusion = not ideal for development; unable to integrate different aspects - exploration vs commitment
(exploration = testing new selves, commitment = figuring out who you are)
- identity diffusion (low explore, low commit)
- identity foreclosure (low explore, high commit) → early adolescence + strict parents
- identity moratorium (high explore, low commit) → mid adolescence
- identity achievement (high explore, high commit) → end of adolescence + associated with positive self image, flexibility, independence
discuss how social media may provide a context to construct identity and a space to explore identity
- cue management and asynchronicity: offer opportunities to construct and display an identity → can choose what/how/when to present (eg. through photos/images, usernames, avatars, self-descriptions, sexuality, group membership)
- online identity experiments: pretend to be someone else
- explore identity
- more when SM was less image based
describe research findings on personality cues in selfies (are our online self-portrayals accurate) → Qiu et al paper
RQ: Are cues to personality present in selfies AND can other people detect our personality from our selfies
participant x own BIG5
- E = not related
- A = emotional positivity, low camera height
- C = public location
- N = duckface
- O = emotional positivity
conclusions
- cues in selfies were linked to self-rated personality
- observers only accurately judged openness
define self concept clarity
the degree to which our beliefs about our identity are clearly defined and stable (strong; consistent sense of ID)
what beliefs are associated with low self-concept clarity
- my beliefs about myself often conflict with one another
- my beliefs about myself seem to change frequently
- it is often hard for me to make up my mind about things because i don’t really know what i want
- i spend a lot of time wondering about what kind of person i am
benefits of higher self concept clarity
- psychological adjustment
- higher self esteem
- better wellbeing
varies with culture: less relationship between SCC and outcomes in collectivistic cultures
explain the fragmentation hypothesis
- experimentation with identity online, and exposure to many different ideas leads to confusion
- affordances of social media lead to more confusion and less clarity
explain the unity hypothesis
- different views online may serve as a model and sounding board, can help to develop and corroborate identity
- several perspectives can help you figure out more clarity in sense of self
what do most studies find about use of social media and self concept clarity (in terms of fragmentation and unity)
- most studies suggest a negative relationship between social media use and self-concept clarity
- may depend on intention/type of use/individual
what are the negative impacts of social media on self-esteem
- upward social comparison
- effects on body image
- negative feedback/lack of approval from others
what are the positive impacts of social media on self-esteem
- positive feedback/approval from others
- social connections
- feeling control
discuss research on the link between SM and self-esteem (valkenberg study)
- 55% of SM experiences were viewed as positive → linked to increases in SE
- 18% of SM experiences viewed as negative → linked to decreases in SE
- ind with lower average SE benefited more from SM
- ind with higher SE instability benefited more from positive SM
in general what do studies find about the link between SM and self-esteem and the factors that might impact it
studies show mixed results
- depend on reactions: positive feedback increases SE
- depend on type of use: more negative relationship (eg. addictive/viewing others’ profiles) → poor SE
- individual and situational differences
define narcissism
a personality trait consisting of elevated self-concept
define the two types of narcissism
- grandiose narcissism = extroverted, callous form
- vulnerable narcissism = introverted, neurotic form (defensive, drawn inwards)
what does research find about link between SM and narcissism
- narcissism is increasing; linked with increased SM use
small, consistent link between SM use and grandiose narcissism but not vulnerable
- linked to more time on social media
- more friends on social media
- more frequent updates/more activity
- NOTE: possible directionality issue
what are the models/explanations for why there is a relationship between narcissism and SM use
- narcissism → more SM use
- self-regulation (self-enhancement) model: social media serves as a useful platform for promoting oneself so narcissists are drawn to it
- fit model: the wide but shallow connections of social media are a good fit for narcissistic individuals
- other explanations
- trait model: it’s not narcissism but traits associated with grandiose narcissism (extraversion)
consider why social media use in adolescence may relate to sexual identity development
what affordances of SM allow for development of sexual ID
- adolescence is a crucial time for development of sexuality and sexual identity
- SM gives ability to declare sexual identity; can use social media to establish/promote your sexual identity
- teens frequently use SM/internet to learn about sex, talk about sex, and construct sexual identities → talk to others, expt, navigate sexual ID
affordances of SM that allow space for development of sexual identification
- identifiability/anonymity
- availability
- asynchronicity
- interactivity
what are the positive impacts of SM on sexual identity development for LGBT youth
social media provides beneficial contexts for sexual identity development:
- information
- models
- interaction
- social support
- exploration (what does it mean to have this ID)
especially for multiply marginalized and/or underrepresented individuals (eg. LGBT youth of color, rural youth, religious youth, etc)
what are the negative impacts of SM on sexual identity development for LGBT youth
- more likely to be targeted by cyberbulling
- more identity management?
- managing their SM platform/thinking about who to block → self-identity clarity (more fragmentation)
- permanence of social media may not align with shifts in identity
define fandom and it’s unique characteristics
fandom = investment in a particular object or idea (eg. sports, TV, kpop, music, books)
- community based (fanship = individual interest vs fandom = community, connection with others of similar interests)
- creating and consuming fanwork (eg. fanfics)
- amplified with the emergence of social/internet-based media
what are the positive outcomes linked with participating in fandoms
high proportion of fandom participants are sexual/gender minorities (ie. queer) → ~70%
- lack of similar identities in mainstream media (space to see and create yourself)
- a lot of fan-created content has queer content (ie. slash → same gender)
discuss impacts of fandoms in identity development for LGBT youth (craig and mcinroy paper)
RQ: how might involvement in online fandom communities impact sexual identity development in queer youth?
quantitative = stages of sexual identity development:
- questioning
- awareness
- acceptance
- disclosure
findings: fandom participants met sexual identity development milestones at earlier ages than non-fandom participants (ie. earlier to know and tell close others that they were sexual minority)
qualitative:
- fandom participants reached sexual development stages at earlier ages
- fandom participants discussed that fandom instigated and quickened sexual identity development
- fandom participants identified with more complex and non-traditional identity labels (eg. pansexal vs gay)
- fandom participants discussed that fandom provided them access to identity language labels
what are limitations of the craig and mcinroy study
- correlation vs causation
- directionality: perhaps people who realize earlier are more drawn to fandoms
discuss nature of online friendships
- common to spend time with friends and social connections online → big context where peer relationships happen (gaming, gaming sites)
- common to make new friends online
- overlap in online and offline relationships (most of those adolescents interact with online are also known offline)
extra context:
development of ID + intimacy and relationship are the hallmark of teenagers/YA years
- teen TV shows are centered on peer groups/context shows recognition of importance of peer groups
do online interactions involve more or less intimacy than in-person interactions (definitions and models)
- intimacy = the abilities to form and maintain close relationships with others
- cues-filtered-out theories: without same interpersonal cues as face to face, it has a negative impact on intimacy (people disclose less)
- hyperpersonal model: people disclose, emotions deeper, more intimacy online
- ability for asynchronicity, manipulate cues (choose words carefully), physical distance
- these affordances allow MORE disclosure
- may depend on the platform (eg. text based)
more support for hyperpersonal model
what are some pros and cons of using SM for social connection (peer interactions)
- changes frequency and immediacy of peer interactions
- shift the networks of peer interactions
- change nature of peer interactions
lots of debates; more theories than consistent evidence
contrast the different hypotheses around impacts of social media on peer relationships in adolescence
-
reduction hypothesis = social displacement → time on social media argued to take take time from face to face social interactions leading to increased depression and loneliness
- support from older studies of online interactions
- interactions have changed a lot (people you interact with now on social media are people you already have relationships with) -
stimulation hypothesis = social media argued to allow for:
- more social interactions
- larger social network
- better social connections
STUDY: friendship quality was higher for social network users that non-users
- research shows positive correlation between social media use and friendship closeness
- correlation vs causation (is it friendship quality that predicts better connections? use SM as another outlet to enhance connection)
- lots of variability across individuals (better for some but not others)
- rich get richer hypothesis = individuals who have strong social skills who are comfortable in social settings benefit more from online relationships
-
social compensation hypothesis =
individuals who have challenges in face to face social relationships benefit from online relationships
- social anxiety
- socially lonely
- marginalized identities
research supports both social compensation and rich get richer (may depend on)
- age (rich get richer more true for teens)
- reasons for social media use
- reasons for social challenges
is social media good or bad for social connection?
- high variability exists!
- similar distribution of people with positive and negative relationships between closeness and time on social media
do individual differences in peer susceptibility influence the impact of social media on social connection? (armstrong-carter paper)
RQ:
- Is use of social media related to teen’s feelings of social connectedness, social craving, and sensation seeking?
- does the relationship differ for teens who are viewed as more/less susceptible to social influences?
measures:
- social media use
- social connectedness
- social craving
- sensation seeking
- peer ratings for susceptibility to peer influence
results:
- least susceptible: time on SM didn’t matter for connection (no corr) + no effect of social craving
- most susceptible: more social media = LESS connected + more SM = MORE feelings of social craving/sensation seeking
- FOMO as a possible explanation
what were the limitations of the armstrong-carter paper
- data was collected during covid (non-generalizable)
define self-disclosure
self-disclosure = sharing of intimate information
describe how social media for self-disclosure might relate to social connection
- shown to promote connection in offline relationships → sharing info = more connection; helps gather social support, build authenticity
- same appears to be true in online realtionships
- study: instant messaging → online self-disclosure → quality of friendships
- affordances of social media allow for more disclosure? (ie. hyperpersonal model)?
what are impacts of negative self-disclosure on social connection
some types of online self-disclosure are NOT good for social connections?
- excessive reassurance seeking (eg. sad fishing, trauma dumping)
- non-authentic disclosure
- online disclosure interfering with in-person interaction (eg. trying to take pics for SM during dinner with friends)
STUDY: when a phone was present during an important (vs casual) conversation, it made people feel less close (ie. lower relationship quality) EVEN if the phone was not being used.
how do adolescence use SM during romantic relationship
- disseminate information about romantic relationships
- “facebook official”: some studies have linked to higher relationship satisfaction → provide relationship security?
- smaller effect for teens vs adults (perhaps a generational/age issue)
- build connection
- private and public messages
- use to signal trust in relationships (eg. sharing passwords)
- surveillance
- elicit jealousy
how do adolescence use SM after relationships dissolve
- maintain communication, access to information
- exposure to info may relate to slowed healing/growth, more stress
- provoke former partners
define cyberaggression
cyberagression = intentionally harmful, hurtful, offending behaviours such as the sending of rude, threatening, or offensive messages, using electronic means
(eg. sextortion, revenge porn, swatting, trolling, image-based sexual abuse, digital dating violence, cyberbullying, cyberstalking)
define cyberbullying and it’s age progression
cyberbullying = any behaviour performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort onto others
- what counts as repeated
- does there need to be power imbalance
DATA:
- typically starts around age 8
- peaks in early adolescence (13-14)
- declines around 16-17
how is cyberbullying similar to or distinct from traditional bullying
cyberbullying vs face to face
- easier to be cyclical (someone can be the victim AND perpetrator) due to ease of communication unlike in person
- there is also an observer involved (eg. those who see the comments)
similar to traditional bulling
- same people tend to be involved in both in-person and cyberbullying (both victims and bullies)
some are distinct
- 30% of cyberbullied youth report not knowing who the perpetrator is (in-person bullying would know)
- victims may be less likely to report cyberbullying unlike traditional bullying
describe the impacts of cyberbullying
impacts of cyberbullying may be more sever than face to face
- poorer physical health
- externalizing problems
- internalizing problems → depression, psychopathology, self-harm
why are impacts of cyberbullying distinct from traditional bullying (media affordances)
affordances of social media:
- identifiability: lead to disinhibited behaviour by perpetrtors
- accessibility: easier to locate victims
- asynchronicity: victimization can occur at any time; perpetrators don’t have to see immediate consequences
- permanence and publicness: victimization content can be rapidly spread
- quantifiability: may be perceived as more harsh for victims, more rewarding for perpetrators
describe what cyberdating violence looks like
non-sexual online violence:
- monitoring
- controlling behaviours
- cyberstalking
- online intrusion
- relationship violence: threatening, insulting, humiliating partner using online technology
sexual online violence
- use of technology to sexually coerce
- homophobic attacks
- sexual humiliation (eg. revenge porn)
what are the rates of cyberdating abuse
in adolescents: 24% perpetration; 36% victimization
in young adults: 45% perpetration; 44% victimization
experiences of cyber-aggression often predict/associated with poorer wellbeing
what are factors that predict perpetration and victimization of cyberdating abuse
perpetration:
- sexist beliefs
- jealousy
- substance abuse
- narcissism
- bullying
victimization:
- depressive symptoms
- anxiety
- other risk taking behaviour
- poor adjustment in school
- family difficulties
discuss gender as a factor associated with perpetrating/victimization of cyberdating abuse (reed paper)
RQ:
- does the prevalence of digital dating abuse differ across gender
- do the feelings associated with digital dating abuse differ across gender
measures:
- digital dating abuse → victimization and perpetration
- distress and behavioural response following victimization
results:
- girls more likely to have been victims of digital sexual coercions (boys more likely to perpetrate) → otherwise few gender differences
- girls were significantly more upset (distress) by digital dating abuse
gendered/heterosexual scripts playing out in online relationships (boys as pursuers; scripts may also play out in differences in stress responses)
what are some limitations of the reed paper
- differences in likeliness to self report
- difference in age stage of when boys vs girls are impacted by the effects of coersion
- power dynamics in the relationship
- possible that some may not be aware that the behaviour is considered coersion
define well-being
- wellbeing = feeling well in ourselves/our body (several components: physical AND psychological)
- psychological wellbeing = emotions, mental health, life satisfaction
explain how social media may impact wellbeing (general categories)
- access to information: accessing health information (availability affordance of social media) → don’t know if info is reliable
- direct impacts: physical injury, posture, eye strain, dequervain syndrome
- indirect impacts (sleep)
how does social media use impact sleep (generally)
- sleep is important for wellbeing → adolescents don’t get enough sleep
- social media use is negatively associated with sleep amount and quality
- bright lights makes it harder to fall asleep at night (small effect)
STUDY: half assigned to read a physical copy vs ebook
- longer to fall asleep (higher sleep latency)
- slept for shorter amount of time
- not a huge effect (9 mins)
- emotionally arousing: after turning off phone, brain is still thinking; heart rate still going (some link by minimal)
- displacement: time spent online takes away from time for sleeping in multiple periods: (1) bed time displacement (2) sleep displacement
- strongest evidence!!
discuss the relationship between SM and sleep, reasons for sleep displacement (scott and woods paper)
FOMO = a general state of anxiety at missing out on rewarding experiences, often driving social media engagement
- thought of as a personality or individual difference (some are HIGH some are LOW on FOMO)
RQ:
- does FOMO lead to increased nighttime social media use → later bedtimes
- does FOMO lead to increased nighttime social media use → cognitive arousal → longer time to fall asleep
results:
- FOMO links to nighttime social media use which impacts bedtime and sleep duration
- FOMO also leads to pre-sleep cognitive arousal (even when NOT on phones) which also impact sleep onset latency; resulting in less sleep
discuss whether social media might impact user’s mood/emotion through emotional contagion
emotional contagion = emotional states can be transferred to others
- potentially due to more self disclosure affordance of SM
- STUDY: manipulated feed of facebook users (algorithm showed less positive or less negative posts
- measured positivity or negativity of emotional content in people’s own posts
- seeing less positive posts → posts were less positive and vv. (SMALL effect size)
- emotional contagion: what we post mirrors emotionality of others
- CONTROVERSIAL: how meaningful is effect size? ethics (is it ok to manipulate fb content for research without user consent?)
describe research on relationship between SM and wb (early studies)
high use of internet linked to depression
- introduce internet and measured depression 1 year later (increase in depression and loneliness)
- but online media looked different in 1996 than now
describe research on relationship between SM and wb (correlation)
small relationship; mixed results
- more time on social media; more depressive symptoms
- possible direction effect? depressed populations population spend more time on SM
describe research on relationship between SM and wb (experimental design)
if social media is reduced → less depressive symptoms
STUDY: for three weeks, one group limited SM to 10 mins per day
- less SM → less depressive symptoms
- most impactful for those who had high baseline depressive symptoms
findings hold for most but not all experimental studies (varies by length of study and amount of reduction in use)
- some find worse or no effects
- less social media may decrease depression but increase FOMO or loneliness
describe research on relationship between SM and wb (taken together)
most research suggests that social media may overall have a small negative impact on well-being
- does not appear to be a strong effect
- debated
- type of use may matter
discuss how the relationship between social media use and psychological wellbeing might differ across active vs passive use
- active = facilitates exchange with others (chatting, posting, sharing)
- passive = lurking, consuming information without changes
STUDY:
- negative relationship between active media use and depression/anxiety
- passive relationship with depression and anxiety
EXPERIMENT
- undergraduates
- cnds: active use (posting, sharing, reacting, commenting); passive (browsing, scrolling, looking)
- results: immediately after, no difference // at end of day, passive group had worse wellbeing
recent studies challenge the active-passive (effects may not be consistent as once reported)
debate the existence and definition of addictive social media use
- no agreed upon conceptualization
- compulsive pattern of use that disrupts daily life
- preoccupation with use, loss of control, increased tolerance, withdrawal with restrictions, impact on interpersonal relationships and mood
- rates estimated 5-25% of teens/young adults
- is it a cause or consequence of distress?
discuss how the relationship between SM and psychological wb might differ across individual (dispositional)
greater risk for
- adolescents with heightened mental health concerns → greater risk
- challenges with self-regulation → greater risk (more likelihood of problematic use)
discuss how the relationship between SM and psychological wb might differ across individual (contextual)
environment/how environment responds to you identity
- LGBT youth → greater benefit (social identity and support)
- low income use → greater risk (may be related to less involved parenting)
- racialized youth → both more risk and more benefit (duality)
- eg. being presented with videos of deaths of other black is bad
- positive community of other black individuals
discuss how the relationship between SM and psychological wb might differ across individual (developmental)
many time points of heightened risks
- younger adolescents → more risk
- 11–13 for girls ; 14-16 for boys (related to puberty?)
- also heightened risk in late adolescence
- 18-20 for both boys and girls
- confounded potentially by life transition, making time period particularly bad
consider homogeneity, heterogeneity, and duality in adolescents perception of SM experience (van der waal paper)
qualitative study: asking adolescents to explain their individual experiences of social media use and their perceptions of the effects on mood/wellbeing
interviewed on:
- motives and moods leading to social media use
- activities on social media
- affective (mood) responses to social media use
- perception of long-term consequences of social media use
results:
- homogeneity
- motives for use → connection, entertainment, inspiration, information
- similar reason of usage across teens
- heterogeneity
- platforms used, type of use
- links between mood and social media - different feelings after use
- long term effects discussed
- duality (happens within an ind)
- experience of both positive and negative emotions with use
- perception of both positive and negative long-term effects
